tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post1619926331883768753..comments2024-03-28T16:58:17.705-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: A Very Good QuestionGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-4155691616089313102016-05-03T19:06:54.514-04:002016-05-03T19:06:54.514-04:00Ha, I've used that Star Trek quote myself.Ha, I've used that Star Trek quote myself. Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-18813811361866187052016-05-02T15:12:28.326-04:002016-05-02T15:12:28.326-04:00If the Constitution and the law do not protect you...<i>If the Constitution and the law do not protect you, and the science is on the other side, should we simply accept the morality of such practices? The Church says no, but a religious moral law cannot be the foundation for any American laws under the current reading of the anti-establishment clause. What protection remains?</i><br /><br />That's straightforward, if hard to execute. We have no need to accept the Left's construction, no matter how hard they insist on it. We have no obligation to accept the Left among us any more than we're obligated to suffer any immoral persons among us. It seems, though, such need and such obligation lies at the start of any discussion of the matter.<br /><br />No. What's straightforward, if not easy, is to restore our Constitution as it was written, and to restore Judeo-Christian fundamentals to the heart of our Republic. The Left's arguments be damned.<br /><br />Or, to paraphrase, not too loosely, someone else, <i>The words of the Left are unimportant, and I do not hear them.</i><br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.com